Procurement in a Nutshell: Cubic Transportation Systems Ltd v Transport for London & Anor [2026] EWHC 61 (TCC)
30th January, 2026
The Court granted an application by Transport for London (TFL) to lift an automatic suspension of its procurement of the Proteus Contract for revenue collection services, which had been triggered by Cubic Transportation Systems Limited's (CTSL) claim challenging the procurement outcome. The automatic suspension was granted under the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 regulation 95(1).
Material facts
The case concerned a procurement by TfL for revenue collection services. The new “Proteus contract” has a value of around £800 million for its initial seven-year term (with an option to extend for a further 5 years).
The Claimant (CTSL) is the incumbent provider under the existing Revenue Collection Contract (RCC), which is due to expire in August 2026. CTSL and Indra (the Interested Party) were the only two tenderers in the procurement process. CTSL were disqualified from the latest competition for failing a pass/fail technical question.
Submissions of the parties
CTSL brought proceedings, arguing that they should have won. Their allegations included that TfL:
- Failed to provide sufficient reasons.
- Failed to keep sufficient records.
- Treated CTSL unequally and unfairly.
- Failed to follow the ITT.
- Applied undisclosed criteria.
- Should have rejected Indra, the winning bidder.
CTSL also brought allegations of bias, conflicts of interest and that the evaluator’s training was inadequate.
TfL contended that:
- The burden of proof lies on CTSL to support the continuance of the automatic suspension.
- There is no existential risk to CTSL or the wider Cubic Group.
- Alleged harm to CTSL’s reputation does not mean that damages are inadequate.
- Redundancies or job losses are remediable damages.
- Damages would be adequate as the profit on the Proteus Contract could be. calculated and there were only two bidders, simplifying any “loss of chance” assessment.
If the suspension remained, damages would be inadequate for TfL because the benefits of the new contract to passengers would be delayed by two years. The assets within TfL’s revenue collection system are at the end of their reliable lifespan, creating operational risks. Indra’s offer also expires in March 2026, and might not be available on the same terms later.
Court rationale and judgement
Applying the American Cyanamid principles, the Court found that damages would be an adequate remedy for CTSL. However, damages would not have been an adequate remedy for TfL. This was due to the ‘fundamental’ disadvantages to passengers that would arise from a 18-month to two-year delay in transport benefits, alongside serious operational risks.
Regarding the adequacy of damages for CTSL, the Court noted its conclusion that: ‘the fact the Proteus Contract is large and prestigious does not mean that damages are not an adequate remedy’. The court also ruled that CTSL as a ‘significant player in the international transportation market’ had failed to establish that its failure to win the Proteus Contract will significantly affect its changes in future procurements. Due to this, the suspension was therefore lifted.
Please note that this briefing is designed to be informative, not advisory and represents our understanding of English law and practice as at the date indicated. We would always recommend that you should seek specific guidance on any particular legal issue.
This page may contain links that direct you to third party websites. We have no control over and are not responsible for the content, use by you or availability of those third party websites, for any products or services you buy through those sites or for the treatment of any personal information you provide to the third party.
